Last week, Chinese coast guard vessels rammed and shot water cannon at Philippine ships in the South China Sea. The incident was well within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone and was completely unprovoked.
It is the latest example of a sustained pattern of Chinese maritime coercion that has intensified over the past three years. Despite the growing frequency and sheer aggression of these tactics, international attention and official rebukes have noticeably waned in the past 12 months.
For Australia, a nation whose prosperity and security relies on maritime trade, there can be no room for complacency or desensitisation. China’s maritime aggression puts Australia at risk.
…
History teaches that once coercion goes unchecked, it tends to escalate. The incident last week is not an isolated provocation, but part of a continued deterioration of security in the waters around us.
Australia has both the right and the responsibility to challenge the normalisation of this kind of maritime aggression. We can push back by calling out each incident, continuing to deepen our regional partnerships, accelerating the development of our naval capabilities, and reinforcing international maritime law.
Our future prosperity, and the security of generations to come, depends on it.
The incident last week is not an isolated provocation, but part of a continued deterioration of security in the waters around us.
It’s in the northern hemisphere about 3000km away at closest. This article is using some underhanded rhetoric here.
Sandy Cay is unoccupied and is claimed by Vietnam, Taiwan (ROC), China (PRC) and the Philippines. The article says “The incident was well within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone”, neglecting to point out that it’s also well within the exclusive economic zones of Vietnam, Taiwan and China. So while factually correct, it’s intentionally misleading to say “well within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone” like that, because that’s one of many conflicting claims and it’s clearly not exclusive in practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea
Wow, viewed in this light, this article is needlessly incendiary. Thanks for context.
While Australia punches above its weight, a nation of 30m cannot easily go toe to toe with a nation of 1billion.
If the alliances in Asia break down the same way NATO is being destroyed then Australia is better off playing nice in waters it definitely only has a indirect stake in, even if it rankles.
Timor Strait, sure. South China Sea…only if all the others with an interest there are aligned and want us there (Korea, Vietnam, Phillipines, Japan etc)
Canada increased military cooperation with Australia in the Indo-Pacific already in 2024, the EU is seeking a new defence alliance with Australia. And so did South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and a lot of others with shared values.
As an addition: Nato is not destroyed. Canada and the EU partners will have to rethink its cooperation, but this is what they have already been doing for some time. Australia is certainly one partner in this new global security architecture.
And this is a very positive thing for Australia and Canada. The closer the ties the better, both countries have a huge amount in common culturally and economically. Oz NZ & Canada are very much brothers and we should support each other.
I am very positive about the steps towards closer alliance that are being taken by NATO-1 since the Tangerine Palpatine took office.
If the alliances in Asia break down the same way NATO is being destroyed then Australia is better off playing nice in waters it definitely only has a indirect stake in, even if it rankles.
Its best to lean forward, Australia doesn’t want to be jumping in when Indonesia is feeling on the backfoot. Aus wants to be pushing robustly for uniform rules of the sea across the board.
Whats the difference in international waters in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean? Its legally nothing, they’re governed by the same law of the sea agreement.
As the article discusses, if you don’t push your opposition, cynical actors will take advantage and establish as much dominance as possible.
Timor Strait, sure. South China Sea…only if all the others with an interest there are aligned and want us there (Korea, Vietnam, Phillipines, Japan etc)
Australia should be acting as a convener for South-East Asian, Pacific, and East Asian countries but you’re essentially right, Australia has to respect the sovereign wishes of each other country where clear lines of sides are marked, but where there is grey, Australia must act to minimise the potential for China to dominate it’s (China’s) rivals or neighbours in the region.
ASEAN has previously made it clear they don’t want Australia as a “convenor” or leader of anything in SEA. Maybe that’s changed in the last few years since China started getting aggressive but if so I’ve seen nothing to indicate it.
Australia needs to be a stalwart ally, but SEA and the South China Sea needs to be lead by Japan, Korea, Phillipines, Vietnam and SEA by Indonesia, Thailand ,Singapore& Phillipines.
This has been made VERY VERY clear. They view our involvement as an extension of imperialism and don’t want it.
Australia has always supported our allies militarily, and we will continue to do so, but we also don’t want to be where we’re not wanted.
America once wanted to be world police now they don’t, that leaves a vacuum in SEA but we’re not the ones to pick up that mantle
Nah, its practically impossible for Australia to be a leader of any sort, too small.
Thats why i only say convener, because of the geopolitical position, as an invested and interested party, but back a bit, it means Australia is in a more neutral position in discussions which can be a good place for a convener to come from.
Agreeing on the direction of discussions but more open minded to conflicting policy direction that may arise.
But yeah, as you say, Australia must act in support of our allies in this region as the primary policy setting in any of this and fill the role they need from Australia.
Australia is not alone, i’m pretty sure a shit load of countries including Canada would immediately declare war on China. It would be the last thing they ever did.
And Russia would quickly move to grab territory.
Japan, a tiny country, easily conquered China in the 1930s.
That is because China is so corrupt none of it’s military equipment works well.
The armies are underfed and poorly trained
and it’s NOT 1 billion. China lies about it’s population just like it lies about everything else. It lies so it looks bigger and more powerful than it really is and to make statistics look better.
Japan, a tiny country, easily conquered China in the 1930s.
Japan, a country of 80million in 1931invaded a weak China (circa 300m) which was at the tail end of it’s century of humiliation in which it had been beaten multiple times in wars against the European super powers of Britain, and then France, followed by defeat against Japan in 1895 (in which they ceded Korea - a nation of then 25m plusTaiwan (formosa) 8m).
The 1931 invasion of Manchuria sliced another 50m out of their population and was the launch pad for their ww2 empire.
Your characterisation of it as a tiny island against a massive foe was inaccurate for that time, but it is also not an equivalent for now.
Japan in early 20th C was a medium to large nation on the rise and industrialising. China was then a high population but low industry and poorly developed and poorly managed country which had been under attack from all sides for decades from multiple powerful nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_colonial_empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation
It is utterly specious to compare the modern heavily industrialised China of the 21st century to the China that was invaded in 1937 by Japan.
The US & China are the two largest economies and the two largest militaries. The US is currently far stronger but the Russian Manchurian candidate in the White House is busily tearing that advantage down.
Under estimate them at your peril. If the democracies of Asia come together they can indeed defeat China if necessary, but don’t make the WW1 mistake of “all over by christmas” it will be a long and bitter war.
Isn’t China one if not the biggest economic partner to Australia?
Putting it simple maybe to Australia is more important to get with China than be strongly involved in the disputes with the Philippines?
China is indeed our largest trading partner but the Australian approach is a bit more nuanced. Previous experience has taught that China will try to control if they perceive weakness. We had a trade “dispute” (deliberate chinese sanctions) because they objected to Oz politicians discussing the source of covid. We diversified. But we didnt roll over.
There is a current conflict between the fact we have heavily aligned with the US post WW2 and them going fascist while the majority of our markets are in Asia.
We cannot simply kowtow to China, it straight up doesnt work and isnt respected. But we can no longer rely on the US as an ally and need to strengthen our ties locally.
I’m hopeful that Japanese & Korean defence overtures with Europe, and European ties with Canada & UK will draw together a “free world” defence alliance against the fascists and dictators.
Here’s hoping its only a cold war.
Nope. For many reasons, getting with China means certain vassal State.
For instance, Australia’s current stance is that its only arguable whether Australia is a vassal Sate with the USA. Its definitely a close relationship, but on balance i think it comes out more a major-minor partnership, at least in this and since WW2’s strategic moment.
So stripping out cultural alignments, for only a second, it comes to a question of whether status-quo economic relationship is more valuable to the senior partner (Aus-China), than a strategic partnership to the senior partner (Aus -USA).
This makes it really easy, in an economic relationship you can get by with slaves in a worst case scenario, on the other hand you always need a certain goodwill from the minor country people to have near alignment with the major partner’s goals.
Putting the cultural alignments back in and it makes it difficult to see a closer alignment with China in the near future for Australia. Interestingly, i think the more culturally diverse we get the more we will in fact align with a country like the USA, not this fascist populism that has overtaken everything at the moment, but the general direction.
The theory that tying economies together stops war is just a theory, and i don’t think with a huge amount of evidence. I mean USA and USSR never went directly to war, and they had very limited trade. France and Germanic peoples went to war plenty, lots of trade reliance.
Portugal and England being famous allies, largely to their interlocking trade balances, among other geopolitical traits, might send this little argument down the toilet though, so maybe be a trade relationship ends up pretty net-net in the calculus for war.
Edit: Maybe it comes down to the reliance of the country on the type of traded good. Does its trade ceasing damage the importing country ina material way?
Australia is still in the commonwealth btw
This has nothing to do with the economy in the first place, but it is a good point to reduce dependencies.
